On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 12:10:45PM +0200, Marcel Jamin wrote: > I think the question has already been answered for you by the companies > that build on top of it, the investments being made and the $3.5 billion > market cap. The 1.0.0 tag is probably long overdue.
May I remind you that by far, most of that investment is not in the Bitcoin Core software. It is made to things building on top of the network/protocol, under the assumption that nothing really stupid will happen and the network will not go down etc. This implies a level of trust in the node software to maintain consensus, but doesn't necessarily mean that all rough corners have been dealt with regarding implementation. (but this is exactly the kind of argument I'm trying to avoid getting pulled into) > Then you could start using the version as a signaling mechanism. We certainly could, it is a decision to not to. > Yeah, probably not a very important topic right now. Exactly. Wladimir > > > > 2015-10-01 11:56 GMT+02:00 Wladimir J. van der Laan <laa...@gmail.com>: > > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 11:41:25AM +0200, Marcel Jamin wrote: > > > I guess the question then becomes why bitcoin still is <1.0.0 > > > > I'll interpret the question as "why is the Bitcoin Core software still > > <1.0.0". Bitcoin the currency doesn't have a version, the block/transaction > > versions are at v3/v1 respectively, and the highest network protocol > > version is 70011. > > > > Mostly because we don't use the numbers as a signaling mechanism. They > > just count up, every half year. > > > > Otherwise, one'd have to ask hard questions like 'is the software mature > > enough to be called 1.0.0', which would lead to long arguments, all of > > which would eventually lead to nothing more than potentially increasing a > > number. We're horribly stressed-out as is. > > > > Wladimir > > _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
